From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-f71.google.com (mail-lf1-f71.google.com [209.85.167.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004D58E0001 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 14:19:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-lf1-f71.google.com with SMTP id x2so441184lfg.16 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:19:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id n10sor6530251lfe.49.2018.12.20.11.19.18 for (Google Transport Security); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:19:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] __wr_after_init: x86_64: __wr_op References: <20181219213338.26619-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20181219213338.26619-5-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20181220184917.GY10600@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Igor Stoppa Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 21:19:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181220184917.GY10600@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Dave Hansen , Mimi Zohar , igor.stoppa@huawei.com, Nadav Amit , Kees Cook , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 20/12/2018 20:49, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > I think you're causing yourself more headaches by implementing this "op" > function. I probably misinterpreted the initial criticism on my first patchset, about duplication. Somehow, I'm still thinking to the endgame of having higher-level functions, like list management. > Here's some generic code: thank you, I have one question, below > void *wr_memcpy(void *dst, void *src, unsigned int len) > { > wr_state_t wr_state; > void *wr_poking_addr = __wr_addr(dst); > > local_irq_disable(); > wr_enable(&wr_state); > __wr_memcpy(wr_poking_addr, src, len); Is __wraddr() invoked inside wm_memcpy() instead of being invoked privately within __wr_memcpy() because the code is generic, or is there some other reason? > wr_disable(&wr_state); > local_irq_enable(); > > return dst; > } > > Now, x86 can define appropriate macros and functions to use the temporary_mm > functionality, and other architectures can do what makes sense to them. > -- igor